Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh

Response to: Rick Hubbard Professor Russell s approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some

Message 1 of 29
, Feb 5, 2013

0 Attachment

Response to: Rick Hubbard

�

Professor Russell's approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some consideable redaction on out part of the current GTh to arrive at a text that contains the original author's intent even if there is one.

�

However, these difficulties do not mean we shouldn't try it because most authors of texts DO have�a purpose. In my view, simply dismissing a GTh as a list of sayings is a decision that should be revisited using the varied and creative capabilities of this forum. We should try to make sense of GTh using whatever method we desire to postulate the original text.

�

In other words, I am proposing original work by this body as opposed to just discussing what others write about GTh. If only I and my friends perform this task the results will be strongly colored by the Synoptic Gospels and their orthodox intrepretations. That is not the varied conclusions�I evision from this group. On the other hand, if nobody can consturct a redaction that has a purpose we have develeoped evidence that GTh is, and always was, simply a list without a specific purpose.

�

Whatever one may think of Professor Russell, I can personally assure this group that this process had provided me new insite into various NT texts and those conclusions are often at odds with respected scholars conclusions.

�

We do not have Jesus's words, spoken in Aramaic or even a Greek text (a presumed 1st
century text) but we can correct for the culture. I have a commentary "Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels" �by Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbarg and also have "The New Testament World", also by Bruce J. Malina. In "The New Testament World" Malina describes the culture while in the "Social Science Commentary..." each Synoptic, paragraph by paragraph, is reintrepreted in light of the 1st century culture. What I have is essentially a social science explanation of each of the sayings of GTh that also appear in a Synoptic Gospel.

�

For my approach, I am going to assume that the original GTh did contain all the sayings also found in a Synoptic as a starting point. However, I am not assuming that GTh did not contain other sayings. using only the Synoptic parallels I will try to recreate the original author's purpose. If I am successful�I will then
enter the other sayings one-by-one to see how they fit.

�

This is, of course, not the only feasable approach. One could do the opposite-eliminate all the Synoptic parallels on the assumption that they were added to provide legitimancy and evaluate the remains.

MIKE] Now Jack, you know better. Steve
Davies proposed that in a paper, true, but it's

had about as much acceptance as your own opinion that Mark
wrote Thomas.

JACK] Well, Mike, I didn’t accept it either but my opinion that Thomas
originated in Markan notes has not been published other than our chats
here. Without being presented to the collegium for acceptance or denial, I
have not been able to assess other opinions, and why. I can understand why Steve
reached his opinion. I am willing to listen...er...read counterarguments and
consider them other than just a “nuh-UH!” Of course I could be wrong but
remembering I am the “follow the Aramaic guy” I just need to know why.
Let’s look at the Thomas and Mark parallels:

Thomas logia in order of appearance in Mark (and Aramaic
structures common to Thomas and Mark):

THOMAS104 They said to Jesus,
"Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."

Mar 2:18 And the
disciples of John and of the Pharisees used tofast: and they come and say
unto him, Why do the disciples of John and ofthe Pharisees fast, but thy
disciples fast not?

Mar 2:19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children
of thebridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they
havethe bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

Mar 2:20 But the days
will come, when the bridegroom shall be takenaway from them, and then shall
they fast in those days.

Matthew (9:15) and Luke (5:35) get this from
MARK rather than also usingThomas. Mark uses Thomas because Mark WROTE
Thomas.

Asyndeton is contrary to Greek spirit and usage. Most Greek
sentencesconnected by particle. Asyndeton is highly characteristic of
Aramaic. One of the striking features of Gospel of John (E. A. Abbott
Johannine Grammar)

THOMAS35
Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force
without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."

Mar 3:27 No
man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will
first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Matthew
picks this up from Mark (Mt 12:29) and Luke gets it from either Mark also or
from Matthew (Lk 11:21-22)

THOMAS44 Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes
against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will
be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be
forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

Matthew again gets it from Thomas (Mt. 12:31-32) and Luke 12: 10
from either Mark or Matthew (depending on your synoptic problem
bent)

THOMAS 99 The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your
mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do what my Father
wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my
Father's kingdom."

Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother,
and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

Mar 3:32 And the
multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy
brethren without seek for thee.

Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying,
Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on
them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Mar
3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my
sister, and mother.

Again the Markan "Jesus said.." note which is Thomas
99 is expanded in Mark's gospel and picked up from Mark by Matthew (12:46-50)
and Luke (8:19-21).

THOMAS9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out,
took a handful (of seeds), andscattered (them). Some fell on the road, and
the birds came and gatheredthem. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take
root in the soil and didn'tproduce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns,
and they choked the seeds andworms ate them. And others fell on good soil,
and it produced a good crop:it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred
twenty per measure.

Mar 4:3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to
sow:

Mar 4:4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side,
and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

Mar 4:5 And some fell
on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up,
because it had no depth of earth:

Mar 4:6 But when the sun was up, it was
scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

Mar 4:7 And some
fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no
fruit.

Mar 4:8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that
sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and
some an hundred.

Mar 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear.

Here Matthew (13: 3-8) gets this from Mark as does
Luke (8: 5-8) and, IMO, all started as Mark's Aramaic "Jesus said.."
notes.

Not one incidence of hypotactic aorist participle yet in Greek
aoristparticiple describing events anterior to action of verb is regular. In
Lkxv 11-32 (prod son) the subordinating aorist participle occurs 11
times.Its absence in par. of sower (mk 4:3-9) is characteristic of
translationGreek.. Literally translated Greek version of an Aramaic story by
Jesus.Wellhausen Einl. P13.

THOMAS62 Jesus said, "I disclose my
mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries. Do not let your left hand
know what your right hand is doing."

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto
you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that
are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

In Mark 4:11, 12
the saying is not a simple translation of the Aramaic butthe author's Greek
literary Interpretation of material from his originalAramaic "Jesus said.."
source.

Matthew (13:11, 13-15) and Luke (8:10) get this from Mark because
they both follow Mark's redaction of his note (Thomas).

THOMAS33 Jesus
said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your
rooftops.

"After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket,
nor does one putit in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so
that all whocome and go will see its light."

Mar 4:21 And he said
unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not
to be set on a candlestick?

Matthew (5:15;10:27) and Luke (8:16;12:3)
get this from Mark and Mark truncates his Thomas note rather than expand
it.

THOMAS5 Jesus said, Know what is in front of your face and what is
hiddenfrom you will be disclosed to you for there is nothing hidden that
will notbe revealed.

THOMAS6 His disciples asked him and said to him,
"Do you want us to fast?How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What
diet should we observe?"

Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you
hate, because all things aredisclosed before heaven. After all, there is
nothing hidden that will not berevealed, and there is nothing covered up
that will remain undisclosed."

Mar 4:22 For there is nothing hid,
which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it
should come abroad.

Here I think Logion 5 is the original Markan/Thomas
note that became Mark4:22 and used by Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:26, Lk 12:2,
Lk 8:17). I thinkLogion 6 is a later Gnostic "tweaking" using Logion 5
(hence thejuxtaposition) and redacting back the Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31
GoldenRule.

THOMAS21f When the crop ripened, he came quickly
carrying a sickle andharvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better
listen!

Mar 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him
hear.

<Aramaic> an anash ith laych iDENeh d'yiSHEMo
yiSHEMo

Apparently commonly used by Jesus passed to Mark (from Peter?)
who wrote it inhis "Jesus saids..." (Thomas) as a conclusion to parables (as
in Logion 8,21, 24, 65, 96) and used by Mark in his Gospel for the sower
parable (4:9)and the "hidden and revealed" aphorism (4:23) and picked up by
Matthew andLuke to conclude the sower parable (another strong indicator of
Matthew andLuke using Mark).

THOMAS41 Jesus said, "Whoever has
something in hand will be given more, andwhoever has nothing will be
deprived of even the little they have."

Mark uses this in his
gospel:

Mar 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that
hathnot, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

...with
little change in style and syntax.

Now this is interesting....both
Matthew (25:29) and Luke (19:26) pick thisup from Mark with little redaction
but both Matthew (13:2) and Luke (8:18)use it earlier in their gospels
somewhat embellished. Two separate sources?

THOMAS21e When the crop
ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle andharvested it. Anyone here with
two good ears had better listen!

This sickle and harvest aphorism is
found ONLY in Thomas and Mark, another indicator to me that Thomas IS
Mark.

Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should
cast seed into the ground;

The Aramaic paronomasia evident in both Mark
and Thomas

d'aloho ayk anash denarmeh zara d'araseed zar'a ground
'ar`a

Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed
should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.

Mar 4:28 For the earth
'ar`a bringeth forth fruit par`a of herself; first the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear.

Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is
brought forth,

Kadh yehibha 'ibbah

immediately he putteth in the
sickle, because the harvest is come.

Shallah magla dah'sadha
'abbibh

...is very Markan to me.

THOMAS20 The disciples said
to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's kingdom is like."

He said to them, It's
like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared
soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the
sky.

Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God?
or with what comparison shall we compare it?

Mar 4:31 [It is] like a
grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the
seeds that be in the earth:

Mar 4:32 But when it is sown (zera) , it
groweth (rabhi) up,

Key sounds laryngeal and sonant resh form the
paronomasia. No paranomasia is more certain in the gospels and it is recoverable
only from Mark.

.... and becometh greater (rabba) than all herbs,
(zeroin) and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge
under the shadow of it.

Matthew 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19 get this from
Mark and Mark got it from his notes (Thomas). Of course, Luke could have taken
it from Matthew but the original source was Mark's notes of "Jesus saids..." in
Aramaic which he copied into his gospel in Greek.

THOMAS31 Jesus said,
"No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know
them."

Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own
country; and his disciples follow him.

Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day
was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were
astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom
[is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by
his hands?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the
brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters
here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto
them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own
kin, and in his own house.

Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work,
save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed [them].

Mar
6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the
villages, teaching.

Note that the "Jesus said.." is at Mark 6:4 and the
rest is a story aroundit...a story probably developed by Mark to fit the
logion. The story thenpasses from Mark to Matthew (13:57) and Luke (4:24)
with some redactionaround it.

THOMAS14c After all, what goes into
your mouth will not defile you; rather,it's what comes out of your mouth
that will defile you."

Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people
[unto him], he saidunto them, Hearken unto me every one [of you], and
understand:

Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering
intohim can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are
theythat defile the man.

Matthew uses this at 15:11 but Luke omits it
which I find interesting. Inthe Aramaic idiom, food....bread and wine...are
used for teachings andeating and drinking, taking in those teachings. Poison
represents badteachings. You can hear all sorts of bad stuff and it will not
defile youunless you repeat it to others. Very Yeshuine and, I believe, in
theoriginal "Jesus saids.."

THOMAS45bGood persons produce
good from what they've stored up; bad persons produceevil from the
wickedness they've stored up in their hearts, and say evilthings. For from
the overflow of the heart they produce evil."

This is related to logion
14 and appears to be midrashed by Matthew (7:16-20; 12:33-35) and Luke (6:43-45)
and also by Mark himself:

Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house
from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

Mar 7:18
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not
perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot
defile him;

Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the
belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Mar 7:20 And he
said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

Mar 7:21
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,
fornications, murders,

THOMAS48
Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house,they will
say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

Mar 11:23
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say untothis mountain, Be
thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall notdoubt in his
heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shallcome to pass;
he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Matthew (17:20; 21:21) and Luke (17:6
both pick this up.

THOMAS65 He said, A [...] person owned a vineyard and
rented it to somefarmers, so they could work it and he could collect its
crop from them. Hesent his slave so the farmers would give him the
vineyard's crop. Theygrabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the
slave returned andtold his master. His master said, "Perhaps he didn't know
them." He sentanother slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the
master senthis son and said, "Perhaps they'll show my son some respect."
Because thefarmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed
him andkilled him. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!

Mark
allegorizes this parable when he writes the gospel:

Mar 12:1 And he began
to speak unto them by parables. A [certain]man planted a vineyard, and set
an hedge about [it], and digged [a placefor] the winefat, and built a tower,
and let it out to husbandmen, and wentinto a far country.

Mar 12:2
And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant,that he might receive
from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

Mar 12:3 And they
caught [him], and beat him, and sent [him] awayempty.

Mar 12:4 And
again he sent unto them another servant; and at himthey cast stones, and
wounded [him] in the head, and sent [him] awayshamefully handled.

Mar
12:5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and manyothers; beating
some, and killing some.

Mar 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his well
beloved, he senthim also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my
son.

Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is
theheir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be
ours.

Mar 12:8 And they took him, and killed [him], and cast [him] out
ofthe vineyard.

Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the
vineyard do? he willcome and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the
vineyard unto others.

And Matthew (21:33-39) and Luke (20:9-15) again
show their dependence onMark appending the Vineyard story with Logion
66:

THOMAS66 Jesus said, "Show me the stone that the builders
rejected: that is the keystone."

Mark does not change his
note:

Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the
builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

rickhubbardus

Tom Wrote: Professor Russell s approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some considerable [sic]

Message 3 of 29
, Feb 6, 2013

0 Attachment

Tom Wrote: "Professor Russell's approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some considerable [sic] redaction on out [sic] part of the current GTh to arrive at a text that contains the original author's intent even if there is one."

Rick Replies: What you seem to be saying here is that we (readers) must redact" (=excise) the text until the remnants cohere with a pre-determined menu of possible intentions. That, it seems to me, imposes an extreme injustice to the text as it stands now.

Tom Wrote: "However, these difficulties do not mean we shouldn't try it because most authors of texts DO have a purpose. In my view, simply dismissing a GTh as a list of sayings is a decision that should be revisited using the varied and creative capabilities of this forum. We should try to make sense of GTh using whatever method we desire to postulate the original text."

Rick Replies: First, I concur that nothing is written without a reason. For example if I write a phone number on a sticky note, I probably did so because I want to call the number later. Of course there are other possibilities as well. Maybe I want to give that number to someone else for some reason. Maybe I want to find out who the number belongs to. Hell, maybe I just like to collect phone numbers; who knows?

Second, I somewhat agree that "dismissing GTh as a list of sayings" is not a good tactic, but at the same time we can't deny that it COULD be just a list of sayings (perhaps similar, for example, to the Sentences of Sextus" or even that is a repository of snippets recovered from discarded manuscripts in a trash heap). Whether or not there exists the necessary competencies held by the members of this forum to appropriately revisit the issue is another matter. Personally, I would prefer to discuss the arguments about "authorship and dating "already made in peer reviewed literature (although I concede that you do not agree with this approach)

Tom Wrote: " .., I can personally assure this group that this process had provided me new insite [sic] into various NT texts and those conclusions are often at odds with respected scholars conclusions."

Rick Replies: When a single individual is "often at odds with respected scholars" I immediately see a red flag. It prompts me to wonder about the qualifications said individual might have in order to be so frequently in disagreement with credentialed scholars. I wonder also about the depth and breadth of research (beyond the two works of Malina and Rohrbaugh, both of which are secondary works). Has the person done research on the PRIMARY texts involved (which begs the further question, "Does the person have competency in the original languages?").

Finally, arbitrarily discarding portions of the text of GTh "on the assumption that they were added to provide legitimancy [sic]" in order to arrive at a more workable text is simply bad, bad scholarship for anyone. I repeat what I said above: "That, it seems to me, imposes an extreme injustice to the text as it stands now."

BTW, would you be considerate enough to spell-check your posts before you send them (or have you decided to be "at odds" with spelling conventions?).

Rick Hubbard

Tom Reynolds

Reply To: Rick Hubbard If you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill advised or will likely be unfruitful, I can certainly understand your

Message 4 of 29
, Feb 6, 2013

0 Attachment

Reply To: Rick Hubbard

If you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill
advised or will likely be unfruitful, I can certainly understand your position.

However, some of your comments underline why I tend to
distrust conventional scholars. For example, estimates range from 2%-4%
literacy to 5%-10% with literacy concentrated in the upper classes so it is
unlikely you would be unable to make a list of phone numbers and even if you
could, it would be difficult and expensive given the writing apparatus of the
day. This is the point that Malina makes, that the culture was vastly different
in NT times and we need to remove or colored glasses of our 21st
century industrial revolution society in order to understand the texts of that
time. It is possible, but very unlikely, that the original GTh was simply a
list of sayings in an unorganized manner.

Another lesson from cultural anthropology is that detailed
study of the text without understanding the culture is unfruitful. As you
rightly point out, the sayings of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic, written down in
Greek and the copy we have is Coptic. What is left out is that the sayings were
spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, distributed orally in Aramaic, translated orally
from Aramaic to Greek and written down much later in Greek and later in Coptic.
(We have Greek and partially Greek speaking churches long before any of the
Gospels were written) When Luke researched his Gospel/Acts he noted that there
were many written text and eyewitnesses remaining and he identifies both a
sources. So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on Mark (and a Q
document) and Thomas is dependent on all three or maybe all three were
dependent on Thomas when cultural anthropology says the eyewitness source would
be preferred. Possibly nobody is dependent on anybody for all simply used the
same oral source. In fact one writer states that he would rather talk with
companions of the Apostles than consult the text.

An example of interpretation from social science is the
curious statements of female becoming male (GT114). However in Lk 10:38-42 we
have Malina’s commentary that Martha was acting properly (in the role of a
woman) while Mary was acting improperly (in the role of a man) yet Jesus
commends Mary (“has chosen the good part” NASB)
Malina talks about 1st century culture being high-context (everybody
knew their roles). Lk 10:38-42 may well have been instantly understood as Jesus
commending Mary as rejecting the woman’s role in favor of the man’s. Therefore
I am not so sure that GT 114 has no parallel in a Synoptic. The concept may be
there but not the text.

In fact I am looking at a recurring thread in GT where Jesus
is saying that one must throw off the roles defined by society in light of NT
teaching that makes the identical point once one understands the culture.

Regards,

Tom Reynolds

Rick Hubbard

Tom- It looks like you found a spell checker. Many thanks. Tom Writes: If you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill advised or will likely be

Message 5 of 29
, Feb 6, 2013

0 Attachment

Tom- It looks like you found a spell checker. Many thanks.

Tom Writes: If you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill advised or will likely be unfruitful, I can certainly understand your position.

Rick Replies: Let me clarify. I have no objection to the idea of examining GTh against its socio/political backdrop (insofar as that is possible). Many of the scholars that you seem to hold in disdain are doing that very thing. I daresay, however, they have prepared for their work by reading more than just a few commentaries. Unless and until you can demonstrate that you are equally well prepared I am not likely to be persuaded by someone who proclaims a demonstrated history of "being at odds with the conclusions of respected (or at least well-credentialed) scholars.

Tom Writes: <snip> "….. [C]ulture was vastly different in NT times and we need to remove or [sic] colored glasses of our 21st century industrial revolution society in order to understand the texts of that time."

Rick Replies: What you write is a truism if there ever was one. We are no less than 17 or 18 centuries temporally removed from the probable time of composition for the Gospel of Thomas manuscript. It is written in a language few people can even name, much less read. We know with near certainty that there is a Hellenistic Greek vorlage behind the sayings manuscript. It is also likely that there may have been some other antecedents to the Coptic version of Thomas, perhaps in written in Aramaic and Syriac. How do you propose to divine the "author's purpose" unless you have competency in at least **some** of those languages? (Of course maybe you do have such competency, however given your independent streak, I'd be surprised if you have bothered to take the time to become even vaguely familiar with them.) Moreover, the vast cultural difference of which you speak extends far beyond the matters of time and language. Aside from reading about the culture of the Levant during the early centuries of the Common Era, how do you propose to merely remove "21st century colored glasses" and gain intimate cultural familiarity?

Tom Writes: <snip> ". . . .[T]he sayings were spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, distributed orally in Aramaic, translated orally from Aramaic to Greek and written down much later in Greek and later in Coptic.

Rick Replies: Let me just ask: Can you cite two or more credible secondary sources that concur and two that do not agree with this summary? It sounds to me like you are picking and choosing that which suits your fancy without acknowledging that this matter is not firmly settled.

Tom Writes: (We have Greek and partially Greek speaking churches long before any of the Gospels were written).

Rick replies: This is an interesting assertion, Tom. What date would you assign to the composition of "the gospels"? What do you mean by "partially Greek speaking"? How would you define a "church"?

Tom Writes: "So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on Mark (and a Q document) and Thomas is dependent on all three. . . ."

Rick Replies: Your flair for making broad (and often unsubstantiated) assertions is of truly biblical proportions, Tom. I am flabbergasted that you have managed to condense a century's worth of Synoptic problem research into such a dramatically over-simplified and misleading sentence. Have you heard of the Farrer theory? How about the Griesbach hypothesis? What do you make of Mark Goodacre's book, The Case Against Q?

Finally: Tom, did you really mean to say that you are "….looking at a recurring thread in GT where Jesus is saying that ONE MUST THROW OFF THE ROLES DEFINED BY SOCIETY IN LIGHT OF NT TEACHING. . ."? Of course you didn't say that. I took it waaaaay out of context but it really struck me as amusing after I butchered the sentence a bit.

Rick Hubbard

E Bruce Brooks

To: GThos In Comment on: a remark of Rick Hubbard From: Bruce I recently posted a comment on methodology with texts, not much at variance with much of what

Message 6 of 29
, Feb 6, 2013

0 Attachment

To: GThos
In Comment on: a remark of Rick Hubbard
From: Bruce

I recently posted a comment on methodology with texts, not much at variance
with much of what Rick says in his most recent post. At one point, however,
I think a correction might be in order.

Rick [Addressing Tom]: Have you heard of the Farrer theory? How about the
Griesbach hypothesis? What do you make of Mark Goodacre's book, The Case
Against Q?

Bruce: I, for one, have heard of these and other theories. But if we fairly
survey the recent NT scene, I cannot think that it is objectionable to
describe the consensus as Markan Priority Plus Q.

Other stuff is certainly out there, but at the fringes. It is true that the
fringes have been getting a lot of play at recent SBL meetings. Matthean
Priority (Griesbach), Johannine Priority, the 2nd century Luke; you name it,
and SBL 2013 has a panel devoted to it. That is a fact with its own
historical basis, a basis which it would perhaps be indiscreet to examine
here.

As for Farrer (or Farrer-Goulder) in particular, I suggest looking at
Michael Goulder's last writings. In them he speaks of convincing his
colleagues as a matter in the possible future tense. He does not speak of
that theory as having conquered the world of NT scholarship, or even as
having a secure position of acceptance within a substantial part of it. That
other persons since Michael died (2010) have continued to explore it, and
even advocate it, is true. But that truth probably does not overturn
Michael's own sense of how far FG had progressed, in the academy of his day.

If MkG, who is present, has a different sense of the state of the balance of
present-day NT opinion, he is perhaps the right person to give it. Pending
which, Mk/Q strikes me as a fair description of what most NT persons who
think about the matter at all, actually think.

Not that the majority, or even the consensus (presumably a supermajority)
need be correct. My 7th grade civics teacher used to surprise the class by
saying, The majority are always wrong. But that is a different question than
what the majority opinion IS.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Mike Grondin

Hi Jack - Even the first item in your long list of Mark-Thomas parallels indicates what s wrong with the list, namely that it doesn t show what you think it

Message 7 of 29
, Feb 10, 2013

0 Attachment

﻿

Hi Jack -

Even the first item in your long list
of Mark-Thomas parallels indicates what's

wrong with the list, namely that it
doesn't show what you think it shows. The

first item (in Markan order) is L104,
which in Thomas talks about fasting and

But Luke does - in spite of the fact
that the main emphasis of the pericope is

on fasting, not prayer. So what's your
explanation? That when Mark wrote his

gospel, he dropped the two
mentions of prayer that were in his "notes" at that

point, and that later, Luke snuck it
back in again? What this comes down to is

that it isn't sufficient to just
compare Thomas and Mark. That's only the one

side of it. You also have to
account for the prima facie
contrary evidence of

uniquely Matthean and/or Lukan touches that are paralleled in Thomas but

not in Mark.

Cheers,

Mike G.

ronmccann67

So what s wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of Jesus created

Message 8 of 29
, Mar 2 8:32 PM

0 Attachment

﻿

So what's wrong with assuming a basic
original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek
expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of
Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed
from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant
works. Must we assume a
Matthean/Lukan dependence?

But Luke does - in spite of the fact
that the main emphasis of the pericope is

on fasting, not prayer. So what's
your explanation? That when Mark wrote his

gospel, he dropped the two
mentions of prayer that were in his "notes" at that

point, and that later, Luke snuck it
back in again? What this comes down to is

that it isn't sufficient to just
compare Thomas and Mark. That's only the one

side of it. You also have to
account for the prima
facie contrary evidence of

uniquely Matthean and/or Lukan touches that are paralleled in Thomas but

not in Mark.

Cheers,

Mike G.

E Bruce Brooks

To: GThos In Response To: Ron McCann On: Original Thomas From: Bruce Ron: So what s wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new

Message 9 of 29
, Mar 3 1:53 PM

0 Attachment

To: GThos

In Response To: Ron McCann

On: Original Thomas

From: Bruce

Ron: So what's wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant works. Must we assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence?

Bruce: What’s wrong with it is that the supposed “original Thomas” has not been displayed. What would seem to be required is to (1) strip present Thomas of all Synoptically related passages, and any others which can be argued to be secondary, and then (2) show that what is left makes consecutive sense as a text in its own right.

A complete account would also include (3) an assessment of the extent to which the addition of the Synoptic material (and any other passages thought to be late additions) changed the focus or content of the original Thomas.

I would be content to see (1) and (2). Without at least that much of a statement of the hypothesis, I don’t see that there is anything to discuss.

E Bruce Brooks

Warring States Project

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Mike Grondin

[Ron McCann, emphasis mine]: So what s wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of

Message 10 of 29
, Mar 4 12:13 AM

0 Attachment

﻿

[Ron McCann, emphasis mine]:

So what's wrong with assuming a basic
original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek
expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of
Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed
from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant
works. Must

we assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence? Don't see it.

Hi Ron,

I think 'assume' is the wrong word
here, since it's surely wrong to assumeeither

of the views you mention. If one thinks that Mark Goodacre
(or someone else) has

presented a good case that some Greek GThom sayings
mimic textual mannerisms

typical of Matt or Luke, but not
typical of GThom itself in general, that isn't an

assumption, but rather a judgement
about the strength of a case. As to your own (?)

view, I wouldn't go as far as Bruce
Brooks, in suggesting that it would be necessary to

jettison all synoptic-related material in order to find a
hypothetical original GThom (isn't

that rather like jettisoning everything commonplace in order
to find the authentic Jesus?),

but I do agree that such a view
can't be assumed, either. You may, of course, subscribe

to the results
of attempts by DeConick or others to do this sort of thing, but
of course

they themselves had to justify their
views via the justification of their methodologies.

Regards,

Mike Grondin

Moon John

Isn t this basically what they do to uncover Q? (The original Jesus sayings) We do not know that the coptic sayings list , presumably from the Greek ,may have

Message 11 of 29
, Mar 4 5:43 AM

0 Attachment

Isn't this basically what they do to uncover Q? (The original Jesus sayings)

We do not know that the coptic sayings list , presumably from the Greek ,may have been modified

after the fact( been more or less aimed at responding to the Gospel or other accounts the Thomas community had issues with.

jettisonall synoptic-related material in order to find a hypothetical original GThom (isn't

thatrather like jettisoning everything commonplace in order to find the authentic Jesus?),

ronmccann67

Thanks, Bruce. For what it s worth, some 20 years ago, I did some of what you suggest. I stripped Thomas of all it s sayings with synoptic parallels- to have a

Message 12 of 29
, Mar 4 8:48 AM

0 Attachment

Thanks, Bruce.

For what it's worth, some 20 years ago, I did some
of what you suggest. I stripped Thomas of all it's sayings with synoptic
parallels- to have a look at what was left, and to see if it "made consecutive
sense as a text in it's own right".

It didn't.

What was left was a dog's breakfast of sayings of
different styles, content and ideas, all of them unfamiliar and with little
cohesion.

If anything these seemed like sayings from a
variety of sources that had been added later to the rest of
the text by either some later collector or editor or perhaps by
slow accretion as Deconick suggested. Oversimplifying and generalizing,
these approaches both hold that the remaining portion of Thomas-
pretty much all those sayings in Thomas WITH synoptic parallels (with the
exception of a few that might have been lifted from Matthew and Luke
later)- was itself the Original Thomas.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the "dog's
breakfast" portion is the original Thomas, although in my own view, at
least some of those sayings, more than have been proposed thus far, were
probably in the original.

Ron McCann

Saskatoon, Canada

Tom Reynolds

To: Mike Gruden From: Tom Reynolds My hypothesis is somewhat different from Ron s My Hypothesis: That the original GTh is theologically similar to LK, MK.

Message 13 of 29
, Mar 4 9:39 AM

0 Attachment

To: Mike Gruden

From: Tom Reynolds

My hypothesis is somewhat different from Ron's

My Hypothesis: That the original GTh
is theologically similar to LK, MK.

My analysis is based on a reconstruction of what the
original hearers of the Aramaic oral-history would conclude upon hearing the
saying/passage that is now preserved in Greek/Coptic. If passages make a similar
point I include them in my theoretical original GTh independent of the actual text.

My question: From the Greek loanwords that you have identified in GTh, is there evidence
that one text is dependent on the other, specifically that the exact Greek
construction is used in more than one text?

Regards,

[Tom Reynolds]

ronmccann67

Hi Mike. Yes, wrong word used. Thank you for correcting me. Ron

Message 14 of 29
, Mar 4 10:19 AM

0 Attachment

﻿

Hi Mike.

Yes, wrong word used.

Thank you for correcting me.

Ron

Mike Grondin

... It s not going to be easy persuading anyone of that, considering the amount of contrary evidence in the text and the number of scholars who believe

Message 15 of 29
, Mar 6 12:21 PM

0 Attachment

﻿

[Tom Renolds]:

> My Hypothesis: That the original GTh is
theologically similar to LK, MK.

It's not going to be easy persuading anyone of that,
considering the amount of

contrary evidence in the text
and the number of scholars who believe otherwise.

> My question: From the Greek loanwords that you have
identified in GTh, is there

> evidence that one text is dependent on the other,
specifically that the exact Greek

> construction is used in more than one
text?

Well, let's say that I highlighted the Greek
loanwords. The actual identification

of them is in Stephen Emmel's
index in Bentley Layton's critical study of Codex II.

As to the question itself (as I understand it), although
there may be special cases

where the loanwords can tell us
something, generally they can't. There are at least

two reasons for that: (1) the
loanwords are almost always different in some way from

the corresponding Greek words, and (2) the loanwords
don't occur in clumps, i.e.,

they're almost
always isolated from each other, with Coptic in
between. That's why

good analyses (like Mark Goodacre's) of the relationship between
Thomas and the

Synoptics focus primarily on
the wording in the Greek POxy fragments rather
than

that in Coptic
Thomas.

Mike Grondin

Tom Reynolds

To: Mike Grondin Well Mike, what I believe is that IF GTh is not similar in thought to the Synoptics then it wasn t the product of the dominant

Message 16 of 29
, Mar 7 4:51 PM

0 Attachment

To: Mike Grondin

Well Mike, what I believe is that IF GTh is not similar in thought to the Synoptics then it wasn't the product of the dominant thouroughly Jewish-Christian community that produced Mk, Matt and had a profound effect on LK.

Therefore:

1. GTh is a second century work of a different community

2. A first century work of an alternate community to the dominant Jewish-Christian community that produced the Synoptics

3. 2,000 years of the intrepretation of GTh is wrong.

This is based on my understanding of the 1st century culture. They were not like
us. They were group oriented and defined by the group and defined others by whatever group they were part of. Independent thought was not encouraged. It was a group think culture. Gnostic-like thinking would be rejected by the dominant Jewish-Christian community.

Each of the above possibilities presents problems. If it was a second century work, why are quotations from 1st century works included? If it was a first century work of a different community what was that community and what is the evidence that it existed?

Methodologically, it seems that something might be added to Tom’s recent suggestion to the GThomas group. Here are my suggestions.

Tom: IF GTh is not similar in thought to the Synoptics then it wasn't the product of the dominant thoroughly Jewish-Christian community that produced Mk, Matt and had a profound effect on LK.

Therefore:

1. GTh is a second century work of a different community, [or]

2. A first century work of an alternate community to the dominant Jewish-Christian community that produced the Synoptics, [or]

3. 2,000 years of the interpretation of GTh is wrong.

Bruce: I pass by the last. If there are still things to discuss, that is, if the question is still open, then we may gratefully take what seems helpful from previous discourse, and move on.

Jewish-Christian: Is this actually a term with a definite content? In my own experience, it can be used to cover any community of mixed Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, irrespective of their specific beliefs. We know from Paul’s vituperations that there was a wide range of opinion (and partisan affinity) in the churches to which he writes, which of course include little or nothing of Egypt, Asia, Nabatea, or for that matter Palestine.

Synoptics. Do the Synoptics completely represent the “communities” in which they arose, and were those “communities” in the same place? Mark would seem to represent Galilean tradition, though perhaps from a Jerusalem viewpoint; Matthew’s take on the law implies at least a partial rejection or reconsideration of Paul’s attitude toward the law, a position that one can easily associate with Jerusalem, whether or not the work was written there. Luke, probably Antioch. but evidently from the poorer environs of Antioch, and Matthew might merely be the richer High Christian Churches of that same city. The opposition of rich vs poor is very dramatically developed in Matthew vs Luke; do we take adequate account of these vertical differences? If we do, are the vertical differences sufficient to explain the doctrinal differences? If so, then the term “Antioch” has become nonexclusive to any one of those doctrinal viewpoints.

One way or another, it seems that the categories on which Tom here relies may not be tight, and that there are thus other options on offer from the 1c, let alone any later time, then the ones he mentions.

I would like to see someone comb Paul for signs of spirit enthusiasm leading to a proto-Gnostic position, a position that some have seen further developed in the post-Pauline Colossians and (slightly later) Ephesians. Has such a study been done? If so, I would appreciate a reference.

Communities, as I think Paul is there to remind us, are not homogeneous in themselves, and even if they were, different ones may overlap (as the migrations of known individuals back and forth between Rome and Ephesus suggest).

Do the non-Synoptic parts of GThos suggest anything about the material condition, the economic base, of the people for whom those sayings were written?

Bruce

E Bruce BrooksWarring States Project]

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Tom Reynolds

To: Bruce I apologize for not defining my term more accurately. In this case I am using Jewish-Christian as the Jewish-Christian residing in Jerusalem. This

Message 18 of 29
, Mar 8 10:48 AM

0 Attachment

To: Bruce

I apologize for not defining my term more
accurately. In this case I am using Jewish-Christian as the Jewish-Christian
residing in Jerusalem. This Church was extremely conservative and objected to Pauline
theology. A proper author-centric, historical reading of Romans will disclose
that the purpose of the letter is unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
The historical setting is that Jews were expelled from Rome for a time, losing
their leadership in the Roman Church. Returning, they apparently asserted their
right to regain leadership because they were Jewish. Paul's rebuke of this is
located in Romans 2:25-28. Shortly after writing Romans, Paul arrives in
Jerusalem. The extreme animosity between Paul and the Jewish Christians starts
in Acts 21:17. The Jewishness of the Jerusalem Christians is evidenced in Acts
21:20 and their objection to Paul's view in Romans 1:25-28 is related in Acts
21:21.

What is the point of all this? Simply that the
community that the oral traditions that were the basis for all the Gospels was
a very conservative Jewish-oriented group. This group would neither develop nor
tolerate a Gnostic-slanted oral tradition.

I am not certain what you mean by “spirit enthusiasm leading to a
proto-Gnostic position” but the early letters of Paul evidence a strong
sense of spiritual connection. Notice that in Galatians, possibly written as
early as AD49, Paul interrupts his logical rebuke of Gentiles becoming circumcised
and appeals to their experience in the
Spirit Gal 3:1-5. A very interesting presentation by Luke Timothy Johnson
called Experience of the Divine
examines the earliest Christian worship and emphasizes their receiving spiritual power from the risen Lord.

“Do the
Synoptics completely represent the “communities” in which they arose?” No.

It is clear that Luck-Acts is influenced by Pauline
thought. Luke clearly says that he checked all the evidence Lk 1:1-4 but only
includes the Galilean ministry. Understanding that, in the 1st
century, thought tended to emanate from the city to the countryside, the
foundation of LK was the Palestinian oral tradition but was modified by another
community, the community of Paul.

Matthew is probably a polemic targeting Jews to
become Jewish Christians. It was most probably written after the destruction of
the Temple and the loss of the Promised Land. Having lost two of the three
pillars of Judaism (Land, Law, Temple), the book of Matthew exhorts Jews to
become Christians by demonstrating that Jesus is the Messiah in various ways
that would be recognized by the Jewish and Jewish-Christian community.

Most interestingly, there is another community,
the Johann community probably located in Ephesus, which was able to influence
the basic oral tradition. Looking at GTh 46-50 as a unit I see a mishmash of Pauline
and Johann thought, thought that would be rejected by the Jewish-Christians of
Jerusalem but embraced by both the Pauline and Johann communities.

To say GTh 46-50 in modern Christian terms:

Christians
are a new creation, old things have passed away, they are born again. Christianity
is not an evolutionary form of Judaism. It’s a new thing. (46-47)

Christians
have received power from On High. They are more than conquers and cast
mountains into the sea. (48)

Christians
are from the light, adopted sons of the Most High God. (50)

I submit that GTh could not have simply been a
product of the basic Jewish-Christian oral tradition and we must find a
community that modified that tradition. I have had private discussions with
people who audit this forum that find the modifying community in Paul, in John,
in a community of Thomas, in the Sethians and, of course, in the 2nd century.
Each approach has its attractions and its problems.

The alternative is that 2,000 years of interpretation
is wrong.

Regards,

Tom Reynolds

E Bruce Brooks

To: GThos In Response To: Tom Reynolds On: Jewish-Christian Tradition From: Bruce I pick out only one sentence. Tom: I submit that GTh could not have simply

Message 19 of 29
, Mar 8 4:58 PM

0 Attachment

To: GThos

In Response To: Tom Reynolds

On: Jewish-Christian Tradition

From: Bruce

I pick out only one sentence.

Tom: I submit that GTh could not have simply been a product of the basic Jewish-Christian oral tradition.

Bruce: I never said it was. More fundamentally, I would counter-submit that (1) the term “Jewish-Christian” does not work very well in making distinctions in this period, (2) there is no “basic” version of early Christian belief, however defined, as the ideological disputes in Paul’s churches will show, the split between “works” (Epistle of James) and “faith” (Paul in Romans) being only the most divisive of many; and (3) in case it should make a difference, the idea that early traditions were transmitted “orally” for decades before being written down in the Gospels is widely held but arguably fallacious: Mark (as some agree) shows all the signs of being early, and Matthew/Luke as belonging to a second generation, when Mark was still respected but had become obsolete theologically.

In short, the terms of analysis are too different for me to make any useful comment on the details of Tom’s latest, and I indicate the differences in lieu of a more extended reply.

Bruce

E Bruce BrooksUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst

Tom Reynolds

To: Bruce 1-There were two versions of Christianity, the Jewish-Christian version in Jerusalem and the Pauline version preached by Paul and his followers.

Message 20 of 29
, Mar 8 8:39 PM

0 Attachment

To: Bruce

1-There were two versions of Christianity, the Jewish-Christian version in Jerusalem and the Pauline version preached by Paul and his followers. The Jewish-Christian version is the one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus on earth. The fundamental issue was whether Christianity is a variation of Judaism or something new.

2-That an oral tradition developed before any written material is axiomatic in the 1st century culture. At most 10% of the population was literate and as little as 2%. (One estimate 5-10% one 2-4%)

3-Nobody dates Mark before AD 50 and very few before AD 60 so the oral tradition was around for 2 decades at least and probably 3.

One really need to understand the 1st century culture. I recommend Bruce Malina book "New Testament World"

Regards,

Tom

E Bruce Brooks

To: GThomas (GPG) In Response To: Tom Reynolds On: The 1st Century From: Bruce Tom seems to be very positive about his postulates, but I can only respond that

Message 21 of 29
, Mar 8 11:07 PM

0 Attachment

To: GThomas (GPG)

In Response To: Tom Reynolds

On: The 1st Century

From: Bruce

Tom seems to be very positive about his postulates, but I can only respond that they are not the only ones being relied on in the larger NT community, and even if they were, they do not necessarily prove his point. I dislike repeating things, and do so here only on the chance that somebody may find these notes useful. Here, then, are the postulates, with my responses.

Tom: (1) There were two versions of Christianity, the Jewish-Christian version in Jerusalem and the Pauline version preached by Paul and his followers.

Bruce: Paul himself reports at least four versions of Christianity within his own churches, and his direct information is probably not complete. He himself might not include the Jerusalem Christians as real Christians (see Galatians), and the Alexandrian Christians were certainly beyond his ken (whether or not Luke’s claim that Paul had to reinstruct the Alexandrian Apollos is correct, it emblematizes a quite likely situation). I don’t think the question can be reduced to this degree of simplicity.

Tom: The Jewish-Christian version is the one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus on earth.

Bruce: There is likely to have been more than one view of Jesus held by his Jewish followers, probably including the idea that Jesus was dead and that the whole program was off. Else, why the frenzy throughout the rest of the 1c to prove, or assert, that the program was still on, and Jesus would come any minute to bring the world to an end?

Tom: The fundamental issue was whether Christianity is a variation of Judaism or something new.

Bruce: Maybe to modern historians. At the time, I doubt the question presented itself in this way. Were the Essenes new? Were Hosea and Malachi new? Was John the Baptist new? I would think that the answer in all cases is Yes, but this need not mean *entirely* new, having no connection with previous Jewish tradition, let alone defining a departure from Jewish tradition. The process of Christianity and Judaism disentangling from each other seems to have gone on all through the latter part of the 1c and into the 2c (eg, Marcion), with a certain amount of bad language on both sides.

Tom: (2) That an oral tradition developed before any written material is axiomatic in the 1st century culture.

Bruce: or in any other century and culture, including the present age. But we cannot place an exact number on “before.”

Tom: At most 10% of the population was literate and as little as 2%. (One estimate 5-10% one 2-4%).

Bruce: I have seen these figures, and I have seen other figures. Mediterraneanists of my acquaintance, sober and eminent people whose advice I have asked, have not found them convincing, or even felt that there is a firm basis for any such numbers. Literacy (and in what language?) is likely to have varied radically in different places, so even if we did have a Mediterranean average, what good would it be as a factor in a particular situation? Would the Mediterranean average help us or mislead us when applied to the Roman Senate? To the slaves in a Greek silver mine?

Consider also: If one walks down the halls of SBL and shouts “progymnasmata” one will get a large response, from people who emphasize the rhetorical training widely available in the 1c (some near-contemporary teaching manuals survive). There are people out there who maintain that everyone in Galilee was bilingual in Aramaic and Greek. Not that they are automatically correct, but they seem to have the makings of a case. And it goes in the opposite direction from these “literacy” figures.

But suppose that only 3% or 8% of the NT-relevant persons WERE literate in the sense required to produce and profit from the written texts with which we are familiar. What then? Will not the tradition have been in the hands of that 3% or 8%? The rest can have things read to them, and Paul seems to envision that process. On the other hand, for what looks like evidence of a primary readership and not a hearership for Mark, note Mark’s comment in his Caligula prediction of 13:14, “Let the reader understand.” I am not sure that this line has been given the analytical prominence it seems to deserve.

Tom: (3) Nobody dates Mark before AD 50 and very few before AD 60 so the oral tradition was around for 2 decades at least and probably 3.

Bruce: Actually, I am not the only one to envision an early Mark; several have made that suggestion. Let me say at once that I am perfectly willing to be the only one holding this view, because I would then have an entire monopoly of the logical future of NT studies, which would be neat. And perhaps even profitable. But in all honesty, I am going to have to acknowledge a few predecessors, and in fact, am glad to do it. I appreciate their company, and their help in pointing out some of the key passages. I am prepared to share.

I admit that if headcount were all, Mark would be a late text. But on what grounds?

There is something in historical studies called a terminus a quo, a point which a given passage *cannot be earlier than.* Thus, when Jesus warns James and John that they are courting martyrdom by asking for leadership, the chances are extremely good that this was written in view of the actual martyrdom of at least one of them, under Herod Agrippa I in c44 or 45. That passage was thus, at earliest, written in c45, and not before. Is there any passage in Mark which requires a later such date? The Caligula prediction of Mk 13:14, which I mentioned above, can only have been written in the summer of 40, when the threat of desecration of Jewish temples by Caligula’s demand to be worshiped in them, was a live worry (see Josephus). In this case, the limit works both ways: it could NOT have been written in 41 or any subsequent year, because Caligula died in early 41, and the threat immediately vanished (and the prediction thus embarrassingly failed to come off). Then we can say of these two passages in Mark, with some confidence, that one was written in 40 and the other not earlier than 45.

I think, subject as always to correction by those with better information, that these two are the only intrinsic dates in Mark. I notice that both of them precede the year 50. Others have noticed the same thing, as I mentioned above. If nothing in Mark requires a completion date later than 45, and if Luke (with his explicit description of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus’s army in the year 70) must be dated to after 70, we have at minimum a 25-year gap between Mark and Luke. Is this reasonable? 25 years, as it happens, is exactly one average human generation. If we think of Mark as a first-generation Gospel, and Matthew and Luke (clearly close in time) as the second-generation Gospels, a lot of other evidence then comes in to support. For one thing, both Matthew and Luke treat Mark with respect, which is hard to understand if he were merely a competitor, but highly intelligible if he were an established and widespread authority, with whom any prospective later and revisionist authority had to reckon.

And so on. I invite general consideration of the implications. I think they will help us in reading GThos, or any other text from the early Christian age.

Tom: One really need to understand the 1st century culture. I recommend Bruce Malina book "New Testament World"

Bruce: I have dipped into Malina’s writings, and frankly, I don’t find them cogent. He and many others seem to me to be using particular “approaches” to get more, or different, out of the texts than has previously been obtained. I am familiar with the same pattern of “approaches” in literary studies generally, and in my specific field of Sinology. I find the whole tendency unhelpful. Or worse, because it takes attention away from what to me are sounder and more productive (and as is happens, also more traditional) ways of dealing with a text or a corpus of texts.

Efforts (like Malina’s “cultural anthropology”) to get us out of our rut of self and into the mindset and foodset of a different culture are certainly in a sound direction. The discovery by the NT community some decades ago, that Jesus was a Jew, was an important moment of recovery. I just don’t think that anthropological or cultural or any other generalizations about the early Mediterranean world are necessarily helpful in sensitizing us to the dynamics of creation and reception surrounding the specific NT texts and their noncanonical brethren. The “Mediterranean Peasant” approach looks to me like an earlier effort of this type. Trouble with that one is that, though Jesus was undoubtedly a Jew, he was neither Mediterranean (he lived and died in a backwater of the otherwise dominant Greco-Roman culture) nor a peasant (he was the eldest son of a probably prosperous artisan of Nazareth, and probably never sickled a sheave or stomped a grape in his life). We can substitute the Greco-Roman culture of, say, 1c Ephesus (Paul’s late HQ) for our own immediate circumstances, as a check on our unconscious extrapolations of the familiar, and it’s useful in a negative way. But how close does this really get us to Jesus? Or the Zebedee brothers?

I have to wonder.

Bruce

E Bruce BrooksUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.